Hey there! Thanks for dropping by my blog! Take a look around and grab the RSS feed to stay updated. See you around!

Posts tagged with "FOM"

DRStrategy

This entry has taken me some time to figure out how to write. Something's been bugging me about recent F1, primarily since the Turkish Grand Prix. However, it was only when Duncan Stephen wrote his item on why he was finding 2011-spec F1 not to his taste that I figured out how to write my own objections to what's been going on. My first reaction to the piece was:

Hurrah! Somebody doesn't think that the current F1 is a) the bee's knees or b) only ruined by excess overtaking.

For me the proximate problem (i.e. the one that's directly causing me dissatisfaction with F1) is meaningless overtaking. In Turkey in particular, the method of generation of overtaking caused lots of zero-sum exchanges - lots of passes but most of them were never going to affect anything in a month of Sundays. They were just going to get re-passed later in the corner sequence or else in the DRS zone the following lap.

DRS foreshortens the process of passing even when it's producing a reasonable net increase of overtaking. This makes it less skilful and also less significant in the context of a race. Those comparing Turkey 2011 to Japan 2005 have forgotten, among other things, that many of the overtaking moves in the latter took laps to set up. Yes, it was normal for cars to be innately 1-2 seconds faster or slower than each other that year, making things difficult enough for complaints, but that still shows planning and skill were important.

If pressing buttons is the new hot skill for F1, why aren't all the F1 drivers being sent on evening typing courses? Why aren't fit typists with clean driving licences being considered for F1 testing roles over the heads of those who have toiled in F3 and GP2?

Besides all that, DRS should never have been experimented with in a race weekend. It should have been tested properly prior to use, and then implemented equally and effectively in all races.

Despite the emphasis on changes to the racing, qualifying has now become the be- and end-all of F1. The only reason it's not become the only non-accidental deciding factor is because many teams haven't worked out it's merely a question of getting your single lap per session faster than those around you. It's no longer possible to waste tyres doing two runs. If you're first into the first corner, DRS means you'll be able to pull out a big lead and protect your tyres as you will while everyone battles behind you. I felt like kicking Lewis Hamilton and Jenson Button when they did their little duel at the start; by focusing on each other they lost time to Sebastian Vettel and wore out their tyres, which made it impossible for either to do anything about the race leader.

That's right, to get exciting racing for the lead in this system you need a team to qualify both its drivers right behind the lead one (without the pole-sitter's team-mate or any other team being in between) and then execute firm team orders on lap 1 to stop them from attempting to race each other. The "no. 2" would be tasked with staying 1.1 seconds ahead of 4th place and then keeping a consistent pace to remain 1.1 seconds ahead of 4th place, preserving the invisible barrier. "Good" thing systematic team orders are permitted this year, else every race win would be unsalvageable.

If you're not a potential race winner, qualifying is still vital and still has to be done as a single-lap run for each of the three sessions. This would be one set of tyres for Q1 and Q2 and then a second set for whichever session is believed to be the final one. If you get through to Q3 when it wasn't expected, simply sit out the session to preserve your strategy. This is because if you can't look after your tyres, the best strategy is to have as many new ones as possible. If you can do that, it's irrelevant whether you can pass the people around you (with gimmicks or not) because you'll probably gain a pit stop on them - especially if your car is relatively kind to tyres like the Sauber is). Even if you don't, you'll gain considerable amounts of time and flexibility.

It's bizarre that the strategies dictated by fragile tyres and ease of DRS-based tactics mean that the act of passing - DRS-based or otherwise - is almost irrelevant to the results.

The trick is to evenly space out all tyre changes according to when your car will need them, which should be quite straightforward to determine based upon performance in the first stint. It doesn't even need anyone to bother doing a pre-race equation - it's simply a question of chucking tyres at a car when it needs them. Pit strategy outside the options a car may deny has now got so little relevance that the discretionary laps can be deployed whenever the team wishes. All the strategy divergence is down to two factors: a) due to the tyre philosophy being new, different cars treat them very differently and b) many teams do not appear to have figured out what's going on yet, so haven't even taken the obvious step of going single-lap each session up to this point.

So we now have the single-lap qualifying some people have called for. It's not improving the racing - it's taken it away. Duncan Stephen has called it "one step away from fixing the result". I wish I could be so reserved on the matter. As far as I can see, it is fixing the result to whoever happens to be the fastest one-run driver/car combination in qualifying, and for most of the top 10, stupidity and extreme tyre wear permitting, they are fixed in the positions in which they qualified.

KERS doesn't seem to do anything to help the sport - it just seems to be something tagged on to keep the stupider elements of the environmental movement a little more content. It's in F1 in a form that will never be utilised on the road (road KERS will be a very gentle addition for all accelerations, not a big boost done occasionally), delivering power in a way that makes overtaking more difficult (which may be protecting us from even worse problems with DRS) and with a lack of freedom which places it firmly in "gimmick" rather than the "feature" it is about to become in sportscar racing. That it's not facing a campaign for removal at this time shows just how much of a problem DRS presents.

One of the things which worries me - and I think it's one of the things that's made it difficult for me to blog - is that so many people don't seem to see the medium-sized picture let alone the big one. They see lots of passing, lots of energy, lots of confusion - and start cheering. They do not see that it's causing very predictable strategies, very predictable results and a very samey feel to races. Energy and confusion might have got many into the sport but if it had kept being those things at the expense of everything else - especially the surprise element - they'd have stopped watching within a season because there'd be nothing to grip them with. If I wanted to know the winner 24 hours before the race and the result of a race for most of the field on lap 15, I'd put on a season review DVD. At least then there'd be decent camera direction...

Sport is a form of entertainment. If done properly, it will be entertaining whether or not the "show" is considered (the "show" only affects how many people get entertained and the length of the entertaining). The decade-long trend towards considering "show" over "sport" is nearly complete. But F1 is not reality TV. Reality TV tropes do not necessarily work for sports such as F1, even with extreme tweaking. The cost is that F1 will soon be unable to be called the pinnacle of motor sport, on the grounds that it will not be a sport at all. The sport needs urgent attention in order to save it, to take away the worst of the gimmicks. That way it might be possible to see how to get the enjoyment of racing to run clear again.

Though I'll let the powers-that-be tweak the "show" enough to get a competent TV direction system and crew. The current one hasn't worked since FOM took over the job and 2011 is exposing their weaknesses so much. It's even more frustrating to be watching a predictable race when perfectly competent commentators, used to having at least vaguely usable images to commentate from, find themselves clueless to things you figured out 30 laps before because you, unlike them, could see the little ticker-tape running across the bottom of the screen...

Read More & Comment

Thursday Thoughts - Blogging

Date: March 4 2010

 

The inspiration for this blog entry is this week's Thursday Thoughts question, posed by Maverick at Sidepodcast:

"Which blog article or articles have you written that you were most pleased with writing and why?"

This is a tough question for me. In the 1301 days since I started blogging, I've written hundreds of entries, some of which have pleased me greatly for different reasons.

In chronological order, the blog entries that have most pleased me are:

Renault and long-term driver strategy - April 29, 2007

This entry broke some boundaries for me. I'd happily discussed general F1 matters, stuff I'd done and stuff relating to Spyker, but this was the first time I'd done a blog entry at length on a team with no particular connection to the one I supported. Also, it was the most speculative blog entry I'd done up to that point.

Writing the entry entailed a lot of consideration of consequences and getting into the mindsets of various people to figure out what the situation was most likely to become. Getting my first link from another blog gave me a lot of confidence (thank you, Ollie!) It was also the entry that "launched" the blog into the minds of readers and established its reputation - I'd been writing articles nearly nine months with a readership in single digits up to that point.

To celebrate, I've reserved April 29 for Renault strategy discussions ever since. One Year On and Two Years On describe Renault's path to stagnancy pretty well, but I feel neither of them are quite as good as the original.

Spyker, Albers and the search for profits - July 10, 2007

This was the first time I felt that I'd managed to make a series work (later entries include driver speculation, sponsorship cookery and a thinly-veiled bit of Winklehock cheerleading. It wasn't a formal series; it just so happened that the Albers affair inspired me to write large amounts about the intersection of money and driving.

As Media Collide (Part 1) - October 26, 2007

I really enjoyed doing the thinking for this one and the ideas just flowed onto the screen. Unfortunately the FOM haven't implemented any of these ideas yet... (Oh, and it's a three-part series, with instalments on the FIA and Mosley on TV).

OK, Now I Believe The Rumour - January 10, 2008

Scoop by hairdo. That is all.

Racing For Ethics - February 24, 2008

This is my favourite blog entry of all. It started out with a news story, steamed in my head for three weeks and after a lot of passionate typing, resolved itself as a call for morality unfolding through the prism of festivals gone wrong, business "ethics" and counter-productive visas.

I felt incredible after I'd finished. Even more so when I saw that my research had caused fellow fans' thinking, and possibly behaviour, to change. Two years after I wrote it, I still smile - and try, so far in vain, to write so well again.

Pros and Cons of Driver Hierarchical Arrangements - July 16, 2008

This was an entry where I felt I made a distinctive contribution to the understanding of a concept in F1. I looked at how teams tended to structure their driver arrangements, categorised them and drew up advantages and disadvantages. While that may sound simple, it is also something I've not seen elsewhere before or since - and something that goes a long way towards explaining the diversity of driver arrangements seen on the grid.

It still doesn't explain everything about them though. Or why I still haven't got round to writing the driver-culture link entry...

Advantages Of Travelling By Rail Instead Of By F1 Car - September 25, 2008

Of the humorous pieces I've written for my blog, this is probably the one that will date slowest. The sheer absurdity of the analogy helped a lot.

Re-Analysing The Championship Duel - November 16, 2008

As soon as I picked up the question of whether Massa had lost through misfortune or something more arose, I knew there was going to be a good blog entry in it. The analysis was a lot of fun and there was a nice mathematical edge to the whole thing. I even ended up attempting to discuss objective v. subjective interpretations of Singaporean performance (in Portuguese) on a Brazillian blog (not easy considering I didn't even have my own Portuguese dictionary at that point...)

Leavetakings

When Honda left F1... ...I found myself thinking a lot about why manufacturers bother doing F1. While it didn't do much for my December 2008 theme of thanksgiving, I felt that it explained the whole sorry affair rather well. Thankfully, Honda did get a buyer as I'd hoped at the end of the article.

(There are some stupid sticky trackbacks here that I can't remove Sad )

My Silverstone Trip (Saturday) - June 30, 2009

My first full live F1 weekend made a huge impression on me. There's an entire swathe of entries about it, covering Thursday, Friday, Sunday and fuel stints.

Saturday, though, was the one I felt captured my feelings and the atmosphere of a magical weekend best. I think I managed to convey that whole sense of a special, shared sporting spectacle.

Fisi To Ferrari - An Emotional Moment

Any topic involving my favourites tends to read fairly well. However, this one was particularly tricky to write because I felt so many conflicting emotions... ...but I couldn't not write about something having that big an effect on me. The resulting entry expresses the bittersweet happiness pretty clearly.

Analysis of the 2010 Technical Regulations

FIA regulation documents, although frustrating, work well for me. They also seem to flow better each time. That said, this document almost defeated me - which made me particularly pleased when the result worked so well as a document.

Read More & Comment

As Media Collide (Part 1)

Date: October 26 2007

 

[ Mood: Sword Fight ]
[ Reading F1 Racing (August 2007 edition) Currently: Reading F1 Racing (August 2007 edition) ]
Warning! Long post alert!

This has been a good week for me in terms of learning about how the other side lives. Several events inspired this post, but it would be fair to state that this is the comment I was originally going to put in BlogF1's entry on improving coverage. However, I decided that a comment that threatened to be longer than the original post is not perhaps the best of ideas.

The Internet has become a hot topic in the F1 world, what with a YouTube video playing a key role at the Japanese GP, Ron Dennis bemoaning the internet phenomenon and me discovering some interesting different ways to watch F1. The latter meant I had three perspectives on the Brazillian GP (or parts of it, at any rate).

I saw Speed TV's coverage of Brazil qualifying this year (long story involving an internet connection and some possibly-illegal behaviour), since ITV wouldn't broadcast live. While some aspects were really irritating (the whole thing was delayed 15 minutes to make way for NASCAR truck qualifying, and they missed loads of Q1 and Q3 due to ads), I envied the Americans their sane and balanced commentary line-up. David Hobbs seems very fair-minded, and although Peter Windsor has some biases, he seems to keep them much more restrained than James Allen.

In addition, I accidentally stumbled on some Spanish commentary some time later. It was on YouTube, and had I known it was a commentary involving copyrighted material, I would have given it a miss. (Well, I am a librarian trained in copyright issues, and if I don't obey the law on this, who will?) The copyright, however, is a separate issue and merits its own post - here's one F1Fanatic made earlier.

I have no idea how the Spaniards put up with their coverage, because the commentators seem to have the habit of talking over one another whenever anything exciting happens. While this may convey the excitement of F1 well, I cannot say that it increased my understanding of what the commentators thought very much. If anyone receiving the Spanish version of F1 races is reading this, please could they enlighten me?

ITV (who I watched for their usual coverage) do have serious bias problems, and is clearly aimed at part-time fans. This increases ratings at the expense of commitment - and you need commitment to stick with F1 any length of time. Thankfully, we have Martin Brundle, but I have taken to watching the music channels for the first half-hour of ITV's hour-long build-up to avoid the outbreaks of Lewisteria the other people on ITV have got. I also stop watching the races as soon as the podium ceremony is done, unless a driver I support other than Hamilton has made it to the podium, for the same reason. Consequentially, I haven't watched any post-race press conferences this year.

There are other problems with the way the media are interacting with the sport and each other.

Most races are currently directed by Bernie's organisation. I sometimes suspect they hired all the Austrian GP camera directors, because the same problems of bias and looking at fresh air are evident in the shots as they were in the coverage of the Austrian rounds before FOM got greedy. If only they'd asked one of the better countries to take over the camera work, we'd have a much better result.

The internet coverage is abysmal. I can't get formula1.com to work on my computer most of the time, so I can't comment on the live timing. What I can say is that on the rare occasion I have been able to get onto the site, the usability for people like me has been virtually non-existent. The FIA's site is not much of an improvement, and is in fact less usable and reliable than in its previous iteration.

While Ollie at BlogF1 may feel inferior on this sort of matter, he shouldn't - his blog is highly accessible and would score well on any internet usability test. Truth is, so are most other F1 blogs, and the majority of forums and other sites on the topic. If all us amateurs can get it right, why can't the FOM and FIA with all their technical firepower backing them up reach the same levels of usability and functionality? The worrying thing is that the FOM and FIA don't even care - their apparent apathy on matters not directly concerning power and money spreads even there, even though their power and money would be increased with usable sites.

The solution for the internet is three-fold:

1) Let people put clips on YouTube and similar free non-downloadable sites, so long as they were short (I believe YouTube's limit is 10 minutes a clip, and I think this is sensible to allow step 2) to work).

2) Have a central place where full races can be watched on a pay-per-race system (perhaps £3-5 per race). These basic races would have just the FOM-recorded video and sound, and would go from the 5-minute mark before races to the end of the race, plus podium and full post-race press conference. For an extra fee (£1, perhaps), the user could access the commentary from the professional provider of their choice, including all pre- and post-race content (this would be identical to whatever that channel broadcast, except without ads and with any content the broadcaster would like that would only work on the Net). The £1 supplement would go entirely to the broadcaster whose content was being viewed. This would set up competition between the broadcasters (all stations like extra money!), would reduce bias considerably (to get more viewers) and garner extra money for FOM (the FOM loves extra money!)

3) The third-party internet world needs to be embraced. Since the protaganists have, for the most part, proved completely unable to understand or cater for the requirements of the obsessive internet-based F1 fan. The likes of itv-f1.com would benefit from acknowledging these sites, perhaps by adding links to more detailed sources at the end of their news items (ITV itself is generally slow on the uptake as well as low on detail). Also, the good sites should be elevated in status, to the point where they are considered the equal of any traditional credentialed source.

The FIA's idea of posting regulations to the internet is good, but it is rather lazy in its uploading of said rules (new 2008 and 2009 Technical Regulations were announced yesterday and still haven't been posted!). Plain-language explanations would not only benefit us - given the problems various teams have had in the last couple of years, it would surely improve the running of the sport as well. But that's another story.
Read More & Comment